Re: autofs vs. Sun automount -- new fs proposal

Peter Benie (pjb1008@cam.ac.uk)
Wed, 16 Dec 1998 22:25:11 +0000

Alexander Viro writes ("Re: autofs vs. Sun automount -- new fs proposal"):
>
>
> On Wed, 16 Dec 1998, Richard Gooch wrote:
>
> > The "clean" (or "fast", however you want to look at it) solution is to
> > let the dentry layer do the work for you. For that you would need
> > aliasing support for all dentries. Offhand, I don't see how you'd
> > support a read-only option with a pure dentry scheme. In fact, I see
> > the read-only requirement as a strong reason for doing it the "hard"
> > way (i.e. not enhancing the VFS interface). A read-only lofs is great
> > for securing ftp and tftp servers.
>
> Erm... Says who that intermediate dentries in stack can't have inodes
> associated with them? Sure, pure vnode scheme is nice, but our one is also
> usable.

Alternatively, allow struct dentry and struct file to have a flag for
read-only-filesystem.

I don't actually see the point of implementing a read-only loopback
mount. There are already protection mechanisms in the kernel to
prevent one user from writing to another user's files. If you need to
run a program so that it cannot write to any files, just run the
program under a different uid.

Peter

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/